Re: William Badinszky, 2026 CanLII 18273

Re: William Badinszky

ORB File No: 7800

Hearing held on: Wednesday, January 14, 2026

Place of hearing: North Bay Regional Health Centre

Pursuant to: Section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code

Before:

Alternate Chairperson: Mr. P. Hageraats

Members: Dr. J. Watts Dr. G. Stones Ms. M. Chamberlain Ms. C. Plyley via video conference

Parties Appearing:

Accused: William Badinszky Counsel: Mr. N. Gehl

Person in charge of Hospital: Representative: Ms. C. Condie Counsel Mr. P. Trenker

Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. M. Mazurski

REASONS FOR DISPOSITION

(Dated March 2, 2026)

Introduction:

1On November 10, 2020, William Badinszky was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (“NCR”) on one count of break and enter, one count of assault causing bodily harm, and one count of aggravated assault, all contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada (the “Criminal Code”). Since that time, Mr. Badinszky has been subject to Dispositions of the Ontario Review Board (“ORB” or the “Board”), most recently a Disposition dated January 16, 2024, pursuant to which he is ordered detained at the Forensic Programs, North Bay Regional Health Centre (“North Bay RHC” or the “Hospital”). His Disposition contains a variety of terms and conditions, including privileges up to living in the catchment area of the North Bay RNC, in accommodation approved by the person in charge.

2On January 14, 2026, a panel of the ORB convened a hearing at the hospital to conduct an annual review of Mr. Badinszky’s Disposition pursuant to s. 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code. Mr. Badinszky was present at the hearing and was represented by his counsel, Mr. Gehl.

3The Board had to decide whether Mr. Badinszky continued to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public, and if so, the necessary and appropriate Disposition having regard to the criteria set out in s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code.

Position of the Parties:

4Mr. Trenker, on behalf of the Hospital, recommended that Mr. Badinsky remain detained in the Hospital with his existing privileges with the inclusion of passes for travel within the province of Ontario. This position was supported by Ms. Mazurski, on behalf of the Attorney General.

5Mr. Gehl conceded the issue of significant threat but advanced the position that his client should be conditionally discharged. In the alternative, if he were to receive a detention disposition, counsel for Mr. Badinsky was in agreement with the addition of travel passes as requested by the Hospital.

6The parties maintained their initial positions at the conclusion of the hearing.

Findings:

7For the reasons set out below, this Board finds the test for significant threat continues to be met and that the necessary and appropriate Disposition under the circumstances is that Mr. Badinszky continue to be subject to the terms of his existing Detention Order on the same terms and conditions and with the addition of travel passes within the province of Ontario.

Index Offence(s):

8The circumstances of the index offences are taken from last year’s Reasons for Disposition as follows:

“COUNT 1 - BREAK, ENTER A PLACE • COMMIT INDICTABLE OFFENCE CC 348(1)(b)

On July 21, 2020, William BADINSZKY attended L[…] Street[sic], Whitefish Falls, ON. He entered the residence, owned by Lori Anne Cywink, by smashing the screen door window and proceeded to strike Ms. Cywink in the head and arm with a steel five-pound mallet at the side door of the residence as she came to investigate. He then followed her outside of the residence where he met Vera Paibomsai and struck her on the head with the steel mallet.

William BADINSZKY is charged with Break, Enter a Place • Commit Indictable Offence contrary to section 348(1)(b).

COUNT 2· ASSAULT CAUSE BODILY HARM CC 267(b)

On July 21, 2020, William BADINSZKY attended L[…] street[sic], Whitefish Falls, ON. He forcefully entered the residence and met Lori Anne Cywink at her side door. BADINSZKY swung at her with a steel five-pound mallet, striking her in the head causing her to bleed and fall to the ground. BADINSZKY kept swinging at her, fracturing her left arm. Cywink was able to get to safety. Cywink received[sic] four staples to close the wound to her head and her arm was fractured and casted.

William BADINSZKY is charged with Assault Cause Bodily contrary to section 267(b) of the Criminal Code of Canada.

COUNT 5 ·ASSAULT WITH A WEAPON CC 267(a)

On July 21, 2020, William BADINSZKY attended L[…] street [sic], Whitefish Falls ON. BADINSZKY met Vera Paibomsai in the backyard and struck her in the head with a five-pound steel mallet causing her to fall to the ground and bleed from the head. Ms. Paibomsai recieved[sic] six staples to close the wound to her head.

William BADINSZKY is charged with Assault Cause Bodily contrary to section 267(a) of the Criminal Code of Canada.

Officers located Willam[sic] BADINSZKY at this residence and he was taken into custody without incident. BADINSZKY. was given his rights to counsel and caution to which he indicted verbally that he understood and declined legal counsel. BADSINSZKY[sic] was transported to the Espanola OPP Detachment where he was lodged.

As a result of the investigation BADINSZKY is charged with Assault CBH x2, Assault with a weapon x2 and Break and enter. BADINSZKY is to be held for a bail hearing.”

9Mr. Badinszky’s account of the index offences is set out in detail in the Hospital Report. It is noted that, at that time, he was smoking three to four grams of marijuana per day. In his interview with the police after committing the index offences, Mr. Badinszky admitted that he took a hammer with him to attack Larry and that he felt compelled to obey the commands he was experiencing.

Background:

10Mr. Badinszky was born in Orangeville, Ontario to his parents, Stanis and William Badinszky. He is the eldest in a sibline of two; his sister, Lydia, is one year his junior. Mr. Badinszky met his developmental milestones at appropriate intervals.

11Mr. Badinszky’s parents separated after six years of marriage when he was approximately five years old. His father consumed alcohol heavily and was physically abusive to his mother resulting in the dissolution of the marriage. Mr. Badinszky and his sister were primarily raised by their father until, at age 12, both he and his sister moved in with their mother in Webbwood, Ontario, approximately one hour southwest of Sudbury.

12The family moved to Sudbury, Ontario when Mr. Badinszky was an adolescent. When Mr. Badinszky was 16 years old, his father, passed away. Mr. Badinszky indicated the passing of his father was difficult for him as they were close.

13At age 17, Mr. Badinszky moved with his mother to Toronto, at which point he stopped attending school. His sister remained in Sudbury. Mr. Badinszky’s mother has remarried and lives in Arkansas with her husband. Mr. Badinszky has a close relationship with his mother and they generally speak daily on the telephone. His sister resides in Toronto, Ontario and Mr. Badinszky has not had contact with her in approximately five years.

14Mr. Badinszky has a substantial history of substance use. He first drank alcohol and smoked hashish at the age of 15. His use was limited by funds as an adolescent; however, he endorsed daily use of hashish at age 18 and this reportedly led to his first psychiatric hospitalization. He experimented with cocaine on a couple of occasions but stated he would become extremely paranoid. In his mid-thirties he began smoking marijuana. Once legalized, Mr. Badinszky began growing his own marijuana. He indicated that he was using several grams per day in the months leading up to the alleged offences without experiencing a deterioration but suggested that when his heavy use coincided with the cyclical or seasonal feature of his illness, it could have a deleterious effect on his mental status.

15Mr. Badinszky has been employed in various capacities over the years. He worked as a carpet cleaner and landscaper when he originally moved to Toronto. In his twenties, he worked full-time as a freelance desktop publisher for approximately two years at the Canadian Broadcast Corporation (CBC) where his mother was employed. Mr. Badinszky has also worked as a roofer and carpenter. Mr. Badinszky stopped working and registered for ODSP as he found it difficult to maintain stable employment or be around other people.

16When Mr. Badinszky left Toronto in the mid-2010’s, he moved to a small community in northern Ontario, Whitefish Falls, not far from his childhood community of Webbwood. He found an affordable house, which his mother purchased for him, where he continued to reside with his two cats at the time of the index offence.

17Mr. Badinszky has been capable to manage his own property. He has been able to budget his monthly earnings through ODSP.

Current Psychiatric Diagnoses:

18Mr. Badinszky is diagnosed with the following:

a. Schizoaffective Disorder, Bipolar Type

b. Cannabis Use Disorder, Severe, in Sustained Remission

Evidence:

19Mr. Trenker called Dr. Li to give evidence on behalf of the Hospital. The doctor agreed with the contents of the Hospital Report and informed the Board that she has been Mr. Badinszky’s treating psychiatrist for well over a year.

20She stated that Mr. Badinszky has been living at his home in White Fish Falls since April 2025. White Fish Falls is a community of about 300 people located 283 Km away from the Hospital. Mr. Badinszky’s home is very close to the victims of the index offence, and this factor was considered by the Hospital when approving this community placement. Mr. Badinszky did not want to live anywhere closer to the Hospital and wanted to live in his own home. The Hospital has created a plan where Mr. Badinszky is closely monitored by the Hospital forensic outreach team. Dr. Le sees Mr. Badinszky regularly over Zoom. The forensic outreach worker is also in regular contact with him to confirm that he is taking his medications and to ensure that his mental health remains stable. Dr. Le informed the Board that the placement is going well and that there have been no issues with Mr. Badinszky’s neighbours.

21The doctor noted that there had been one concerning incident during the reporting year. In August 2025, Mr. Badinszky tested positive for alcohol use on a random urine test. When Dr. Le asked to meet with him, Mr. Badinszky readily acknowledged his alcohol use. He stated that he had consumed four beers when they were offered to him by a neighbour. Mr. Badinszky said that he felt awkward and did not feel that he could refuse. Dr. Le stated that this was especially concerning as Mr. Badinszky’s biggest fear was having to return to the Hospital, yet he still consumed a prohibited substance.

22Dr. Le opined that a conditional discharge was not appropriate at this time. She stated that Mr. Badinszky can not be safely monitored in the community with any less disposition than a detention order, given the speed at which Mr. Badinszky decompensates, as well as his history of serious violence when psychotic. Dr. Le stated that Hospital needed the ability to bring Mr. Badinszky in quickly if they noticed any concerns with his mental health. Dr. Le explained that if Mr. Badinszky were not on a detention order and he took cannabis or decompensated, he could not be brought back to the Hospital quickly enough under the Mental Health Act.

23Dr. Le also felt that a conditional discharge would not be effective in managing Mr. Badinszky’s risk because of his alcohol usage in the previous year. When Mr. Badinszky consumed the alcohol, he must have understood that he would be caught and yet, he still did it. The doctor said that Mr. Badinszky would need to demonstrate that he can practice good judgement before a discharge from the Hospital would be appropriate. The treatment team would also want to see Mr. Badinszky continue to be more open with his clinicians and develop a support system in his own community.

24Dr. Le said that when Mr. Badinszky is not psychotic, he is a kind man who is gentle and loving towards friends and animals. Violence is not in his nature but when he is psychotic, his behaviour changes drastically.

25The doctor was asked why Mr. Badinszky wished to have travel passes added to his privileges. Dr Le stated that Mr. Badinszky has a close friend that lives outside the Hospital catchment area and he would like to visit her. Mr. Badinszky would also like to be able to go camping which is an activity he enjoys. The Hospital supports the addition of this privilege provided it includes approval in advance by the person in charge.

26The doctor completed her examination in chief by stating that Mr. Badinszky should understand that the Hospital believes that he has had a pretty successful year. Dr. Le reported that Mr. Badinszky was well on his way to exiting the forensic system and was hopeful this would continue in the coming year.

27In response to question from the Crown, Dr. Le stated that she did not think that Mr. Badinszky’s fear of coming back to the Hospital was oppositional behaviour and opined that it was more likely a character trait. She agreed that his aversion to returning to the Hospital may impact his ability to accurately report his mental health to his treatment team. The doctor said that the fact that the Hospital did not bring Mr. Badinszky in after his alcohol usage in the summer may have helped with his willingness to be forthright with his treatment team.

28Dr. Le stated that Mr. Badinszky has been more open with his treatment team in the past few months and this is seen as very positive. The doctor noted that Mr. Badinszky has done very well in the past few months to be open about his symptoms to his treatment team. It is understandable that he would be worried about sharing symptoms when it might mean bringing him back into the Hospital.

29In response to questions from the Board, Dr. Li stated that if Mr. Badinszky was not living as close to the victims of the index offence, the Hospital would be less worried about the speed of intervention required if he were to decompensate. Dr. Le noted that regardless of the proximity to the victim, the Hospital would not be recommending a conditional discharge at this time for Mr. Badinszky.

Analysis and Conclusion:

30The Board unanimously finds that Mr. Badinszky continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public. In arriving at this determination, the Board considered the position of the parties and accepted the uncontroverted evidence of Dr. Le. The Board also relies on the Hospital Report, which notes the following:

“ Mr. Badinszky’s risk assessment reveals a complex psychosocial history characterized by severe but infrequent violence, significant substance abuse, and a longstanding major mental disorder impacting on his functioning and treatment adherence. While there is no evidence of personality disorder, violent attitudes, or serious ongoing antisocial behavior, moderate concern remains regarding his unstable employment and limited social support. Clinically, he has demonstrated marked improvement since January 2025, showing increased insight, treatment compliance, and engagement in positive activities, with only one brief alcohol relapse promptly addressed through counseling.

Despite these recent gains, ongoing support remains important to mitigate potential future challenges (e.g., relapses, non-compliance and non-adherence, and isolation); at least until the longevity of his improvement can be confirmed. His current living situation appears adequate for his care needs, and he has demonstrated some independence. Nonetheless, it is difficult to identify if, without regular monitoring and supervision, he can remain compliant with treatment, abstinence and community/activity engagement recommendations. Furthermore, it has been previously suggested that Mr. Badinszky has a limited capacity to develop new coping strategies, leaving him vulnerable to difficulties in managing stress and emotions independently, particularly in the absence of structured support.”

31The Board agrees with Dr. Le’s testimony that Mr. Badinszky remains a significant threat to the safety of the public. He has only been living in the community for eight months and is 20 minutes away from clinical assistance. Regardless of the beer drinking incident, a conditional discharge is not warranted. Mr. Bakinszky’s judgement in social situations is limited and he needs more time to learn to integrate all of his good intentions.

32The Board would also like the Hospital to make more efforts to connect with local resources, such as police, mental health clinic, and neighbours, to confirm Mr. Badinszky’s self reporting that there are no issues in the community.

33Therefore, the Board unanimously determines that the necessary and appropriate Disposition required to manage the threat Mr. Badinszky poses to the safety of the public while still meeting his needs, is a continuation of the existing Detention Disposition with the following addition:

Travel passes, including overnight, within the Province of Ontario, upon first obtaining approval of his itinerary by the Person in Charge or his or her designate, indirectly supervised.

34The Board unanimously rejected Mr. Badinszky’s request for a conditional discharge due to his history of violence when psychotic and the speed with which he decompensates when he becomes ill. The treatment team needs to be able to bring Mr. Badinszky back to the Hospital quickly. Under the Mental Health Act, he could only be brought into Hospital once symptoms are present and this may be too late, especially given his remote accommodation.

35This disposition would allow considerable freedoms to Mr. Badinszky without putting the community at undue risk. The Board believes that such a disposition is necessary and appropriate in the circumstances and could realistically ensure the safe management of the significant risks that Mr. Badinszky poses to the safety of the public.

36In making this Disposition, the Board carefully considered the positions and submissions of the parties and the evidence of Dr. Le and is satisfied that this determination is both necessary and appropriate. The Board reviewed the provisions of s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code and carefully considered the need to protect the public from dangerous persons, Mr. Badinszki’s mental condition, his reintegration into society and his other needs.

37The Board commends Mr. Badinszky on the positive year that he has had and wishes him well in the coming reporting period.